May 24, 1912] 
consideration; and further that the members 
of the Commission will not countenance a 
change in the Code which is both uncalled for 
and unnecessary, and which will render void 
much valuable work and threaten the success 
of the whole movement toward uniformity in 
zoological nomenclature.’ 
Witmer STONE 
THE ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES, 
PHILADELPHIA, 
May 7, 1912 
“ GENES ” oR “GENS ”? 
Arter discussing the significance of the 
word “phenotype” in Scmnce for April 26, 
Dr. O. F. Cook states that 
Pluralizing the word ‘‘gen’’ is another diffi- 
culty encountered by geneticists. Johannsen used 
the term mostly in its German plural form, Gene. 
Our writers have added another letter making a 
double plural, ‘‘genes,’’ something like ‘‘mem- 
orandas. ’” 
This statement does not correctly represent 
the origin of the English word “gene” and 
its plural “genes,” now generally used by 
writers of English papers on genetics. In 
Darwin’s word “pangen” English usage 
renders the last syllable short, though the 
two halves of the word contribute equally to 
its meaning. When the word is transferred 
to the German, as has been freely done, 
a law of the German language makes both 
syllables long. On this account the German 
word “Pangen” better expresses the mean- 
ing involved than does the English word 
“angen.” Johannsen’s word “(en,” like 
the last syllable of the German word 
“ Pangen,’ from which it was directly de- 
* Since the above was written I have read Pro- 
fessor Nutting’s article in SCIENCE criticizing the 
powers of the commission and the difficulty of 
bringing a question of nomenclature before the 
congress for discussion. He fails to realize that 
these very facts give the code its strength and 
establish confidence in the permanency of nomen- 
clature based upon it. We do not desire rules 
that appeal to this man or that, but rules that 
shall be permanent and the International Congress 
was perfectly right in making it as difficult as 
possible to change the code.—W. S. 
SCLENCE 
819 
rived, is long in quantity. On transferring this 
happily chosen word to English it was desired 
to maintain the long quantity of the German 
word, and the addition of a final e, following 
a general law of English philology, was made 
simply for this purpose. The English word 
“gene” (pronounced gén) is thus seen to 
bear no direct genetic relation to the German 
plural “ Gene,” and their likeness in spelling 
is purely a coincidence. The word “genes” 
is consequently not a double plural and not 
at all like “ memorandas.” 
There is a further reason why the word 
“gene” should be preferred. This word 
must be used commonly in the plural form, 
but there is already a word “gens” in rather 
common: literary use and having, at least some- 
times, a genetic meaning. 
Regarding the definition of “phenotype,” 
few who carefully read the passage translated 
by Dr. Cook from Johannsen’s book will 
agree with the translator that “ phenotype” 
as used by its author was ever anything but 
an abstraction. “Centers among series of 
variations around which the variants are 
grouped” must always be abstractions, and 
yet they are, as Johannsen rightly says, 
“measurable realities.” Every individual or- 
ganism possesses an external appearance and 
a fundamental constitution, and is therefore a 
representative of some phenotype and of some 
genotype. The words “phenotype” and 
“ senotype”’ were never intended to be limited 
to statistically investigated organisms. Sta- 
tistical investigation may discover, meas- 
ure and describe phenotypes, but it does not 
create them. Phenotypes and genotypes exist 
among Mendelian hybrids just as among all 
other organisms, and my use of the Men- 
delian categories to illustrate the proper use 
of these two words involves no “new version 
of phenotype.” 
G. H. SHuLb 
Coup Sprine Harsor, L. I., 
April 29, 1912 
CRYSTALLOGRAPHIC TABLES 
To THe Enpitor or Science: The letter of 
Professor Oliver Bowles, of the University 
